Iran: Socialism’s ignored success story

Iran just completed their presidential election, but this article will not discuss the candidates, the result or the political consequences.

I work for Iran’s Press TV, which essentially makes me a civil servant, and I think it is correct for me to not reveal who I voted for in order to preserve my independence within the government. I’m quite happy to work for “the people” instead of “a person” – as in private media – and I will support which ever candidate the people choose.

Why will I support Iran’s government, whoever is in charge? Truly, it is not for my paycheck.

I support Iran because I support socialism where ever I can find it, and Iran has socialism in abundance.

Iranian Socialism has been so successful at redistributing wealth to the average person; has safeguarded the nation’s security despite being ringed by US military bases and repeated threats; has grown the economy despite an international blockade; has produced a foreign policy motivated on political principles; and has fought against the divisive identity politics which undermine human solidarity.

I have actually seen Iran over the decades, unlike 99% of the journalists who claim to understand Iran, so you can’t dissuade me.

And I’m not even going to try to persuade you. This is not that article, either.

This article is to lay out for left-wing readers and supporters of socialism what should be crystal clear: Iran is a socialist nation. Even more than that: Iran is a socialist success story.

Iran, like all nations, has had its unique developmental history; of course we have been reading Marx just as long as anyone else, as well.

But the most convincing and simplest way I can put it to non-Iranians is this: Europe came to socialism through industrialization, theory and war, but Iran came to socialism through its religious and moral beliefs. The ends are the same, and that is all that should matter to anyone who is truly trying to promote socialism for the benefits it brings to the average person.

The problem is not us, it is you

I repeat: The problem is not us, it is you…when it comes to looking at Iran’s contributions to socialism.

I believe that around 99% of Westerners have no idea at all what Iran is really like. Unfortunately, this total ignorance about Iran and the Muslim world is the historical norm in the West.

The greatest contribution of Middle East scholar Edward Said was that his book, “Orientalism”, definitively proved through historical scholarship that the West has never, ever, ever been favorable towards the Muslim world.

Not in the 8th century, when Muslims were occupiers of the Iberian Peninsula, not in the following centuries when Islam was an ideological competitor to Christianity; not in the 15th century, when the Ottoman Empire occupied the Balkans; not in the 19th century, when the Europeans occupied the Middle East & North Africa; not in 1916, when they redrew the borders for the West’s benefit; not in 1945, when they bombed countries like Syria which had fought on their side against the Germans and the Italians; not in the 1960s, when their reaction to independence was neo-colonialism; not in 1979, when they created the forerunner of the Taliban; not during 2 wars in Iraq, a war in Syria today, etc. Said’s point was: Never has the West viewed or treated the Muslim world as equals, much less intellectual equals.

Given this history, why should us Iranians expect the reality of our high-achieving modernity to be accepted and admired?

LOL, believe me, I am over it! I write this to enlighten you, not me! I humbly hope that it works.

I will address the elephant in the room, and quickly: Yes, I assume that a large part of this prejudice is religious. Some Christians cannot accept that Islam promotes the most recent prophet of the monotheism which they both share.

Such religious prejudices are not my problem, and they do not blind my analysis of 2017 Iran.

No socialist believes in a “clash of civilizations” or “religious war”, anyway.

My point is not to criticize Europe for a lack of brotherhood with their fellow Abrahamic religion: My point is to criticize them in 2017 because most Westerners believe that that even the most leftist Iranian cannot even qualify as merely a “conservative social democrat”!

Can there never be a Muslim “democrat” or an Iranian “republican”?

The proof of this bias is the decades of Western support for the oppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Revolution and any Muslim attempt to allow their religion into their politics. This is even though Christian Democratic parties governed Europe for decades after WWII, and it is absurd to think that the Christian dogma is not upheld and promoted in European politics today.

So, if Iranians cannot even be allowed to fulfill 19th century notions, why would the West accept that 2017 Iran can be even more truly leftist than the merely centrist ideology of European social democracy?

Of course, the average European cannot accept this, and this is why Western Socialists are aghast at my idea that Iran is an “ignored Socialist success story”.

The radical left of European Socialism, which seeks to destroy organized religion, is especially aghast, but they are a tiny minority and on the way out, thankfully. They do not realize that they have already been drastically tempered, if not ousted, in the still-Socialist countries they purportedly admire: Cuba is full of Santeria and Pope pictures, yin-yangy Confucianism is being promoted in China, etc.

But these Western radicals are a minority who simply cannot accept that spirituality cannot be rubbed out, largely because they see it as a choice or a social conditioning instead of a part of many people’s intrinsic nature (if not theirs). A modern Socialist must accept that this fight has already been fought and decided. The capitalists certainly advance as we chase our tails….

Even if leftist detractors can get past religion, they immediately will talk about Iran’s human rights faults.

I respond: Yawn yawn yawn African-Americans fill US jails; Muslims fill France’s jails; this is the centenary of the British-orchestrated Persian Famine, which killed 8-10 million people and actually made Iran the biggest victim of WWI, that is just one Western/capitalist inspired famine/death/human rights violation yawn yawn yawn.

I am not here to say Iran is perfect – only God can be – I am saying that Iran is absolutely no worse than the West. It is an undeniable fact that the current Islamic Republic of Iran has far less blood on its hands than most – and Iran has not invaded a country in 300 years!

Religion, human rights – these are all classic diversions from the facts presented against socialist societies, and Iran certainly is one.

Iran checks all the boxes as a Socialist nation, and as Revolutionary Socialists

What are the key components of socialism? Let’s clarify our terms.

The first is leadership by an avant-garde party committed to defending the revolution: Iran certainly has this, and it crosses over Principlist/Reformist party lines.

The second is central planning of the economy: Whoever had won, they would be largely implementing the 6th Five-year plan (2016-2021). And there is also the “Resistance Economy” approach promoted by many, which is certainly anti-globalization.

The third is control over the media: This is mixed – I would say Iran does not really have this in the traditionally Socialist sense. Cuba has no private media, for example, while Iran has dozens of private newspapers and innumerable TV satellites. But Iran does have limitations, so let’s check this box.

The fourth is support for foreign liberation movements: When the history of Palestinian liberation is finally written, just as a now-free South Africa thanks Cuba for sending troops to Angola, will not Palestinians do the same for Iran’s decades of support? The same with Lebanon and now Syria, correct?

The fifth is democratically devolving as much democracy as possible in order to empower the average person: There is no doubt that Iran is the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East, and by a huge margin. The difference between Iran’s social-democratic procedures and guarantees in 2017 when compared with 1978 is obviously laughable. I write this from Paris, a nation in an 18-month state of emergency with no end in sight….

If your country has these five crucial components: Congratulations! You are in a socialist country!

A little bit more on each for the naysayers….

An Avant-Garde Party:

Iran is a one-party system – that party defends the 1979 Revolution. China is a one-party system – promoting Chinese communism. Many would say that the US is a one-party system – promoting imperialist capitalism.

The difference between Iran & China and the US is that in the former their one-party systems are formalized, explicit and well-known; in the US it is informal, but just as strong, and maybe even stronger.

I don’t think this needs much further explanation but, for example, you cannot propose to end the Iranian Revolution and run for office. In France a presidential candidate in their recent election (Jean-Luc Melenchon) won 20% of the first-round vote by proposing to abolish France’s current 5th Republic.

Like all socialist countries, Iran is criticized for not having democracy but they do: it is simply within their own particular structure. Just as in the USSR, there was lively debate about how to advance their own system – should we following the right-wing model of socialism of Bukharin/Khrushchev or the left-wing model socialism of Lenin/Trotsky? – but there was no debate about deviating from their chosen national system, i.e. communism. When they did allow such debates under Gorbachev, Soviet Socialism was almost immediately subverted by capitalist reactionaries and consigned to oblivion.

Again, please examine the repression of communism in the US, South Korea, Greece, Italy, Chile, etc. for historical examples of capitalist “one-party systems”, which are definitely NOT avant-garde and promoting socialism….

The idea that Iran has no avant-garde party but is some sort of totalitarian structure governed by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is only expressed by those who are supremely ignorant about Iran. For the second presidential election in a row Hassan Rouhani won despite not seeming to be Khamenei’s preferred candidate, after all.

Central Planning of the Economy:

I think I can illustrate Iran’s state of economic socialism with this anecdote: Back in 2013 all 8 presidential candidates were pushing for more privatization…not to promote capitalism, but because everything has already been nationalized for so long, LOL!

So Iran has already done the nationalizing, and maybe they need to do more? However, socialist countries have increasingly agreed that some revenue-producing businesses are needed to meet some of the basic needs of their people: North Korea has the Kaesong Industrial area, Cuba’s Port Mariel is giving some space to completely foreign-owned businesses, Vietnam and China have plenty of state-run capitalist enterprises, etc. The reality is that even producing things as simple as soap need some expertise, and very often only capitalist corporations can have that expertise.

That’s why the Iranian government went on a spending spree in 2016, but it was decidedly not your typical capitalism. (I do not want to appear to credit only the Rouhani administration because economic policy is produced by the entire government in 5-year development plans, as already noted.)

Iran was feted like a king in places like France and Italy because they were prepared to spend dozens of billions of euros. But what pleased me was how Iran spent: They demanded equal partnerships, joint ventures and technology transfers.

These are the ways in which foreign investment can be mutually beneficial and not exploitative – this was good for France too. I am not a dogmatic person who is absolutely against all capitalism, but I am against all exploitative capitalism.

My point is: It was a socialist spending spree, not a capitalist one. Iran did not just give money away; they did not waste money on vanity projects; this was not one billionaire dealing with another for their own benefit; they invested in Iran via long-term central planning, i.e. the socialist view of economic management.

This is not like France’s ruling “Socialist Party” recently selling off national industrial jewel Alstom to the United States’ General Electric: The French people got nothing for that. That was capitalism; that was globalization

Iran is not in favor of globalization – they are not even a member of the World Trade Organization, unlike 164 other countries. Some will say this is solely due to the opposition of the United States, but it is not: As many in Iran said during the election: membership in the WTO is against Iran’s principles…and these are socialist principles regarding the economy – there is nothing about the WTO in the Koran.

Control over the Media:

It’s true you can’t have Charlie Hebdo in Iran – hardly a major loss –but Iran is certainly no Cuba.

Iran’s refusal to crack down on TV satellites which permit reactionary, anti-revolutionary channels like BBC Persian and VOA Persian (UK and US government-funded respectively) appears to be a dangerous fire which Havana will not tolerate. This tolerance does give Iran “human rights” credibility with the West – well it doesn’t, but it should!

I would suggest that Iran is simply confident that foreign propaganda cannot overwhelm the obvious successes of the 1979 Revolution. I imagine that Cuba feels that they cannot take chances, being just 100 kilometers from the USA.

Of course, Cubans simply laugh at Western propaganda channels like the US government’s pathetic Radio Marti. Cubans are supremely intelligent politically and, after all, their education programs are decades older than Iran’s.

Iran, like Cuba and China, bans pornography. I note that such respect for sexuality and for women is a very basic tenet of Socialism. If your utopia includes unfettered access to porn I suggest that you are a libertarian, and not a socialist.

I remind again that the media glasnost implemented by Gorbachev was a major driver in the catastrophic implosion of the Russian Revolution. To privatize media means, necessarily, that you are giving those few people rich enough to actually start newspapers the chance to promote their obviously capitalist worldviews.

I, for one, am not about to cry over the lack of published capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist, regressive anti-revolutionary nonsense, and neither are most Iranians. As sad as the Dutch may be about it – Iran is not Amsterdam!

Support of foreign liberation movements:

Some will say that Palestine is just a “distraction” from Iran’s own problems. Nonsense – this is a point of pride to all Iranians. This is a point of admiration for Iran from the entire Muslim world, just as it is a negative point for much of the Western world.

This is another way Iran is revolutionary Socialist country: they support oppressed countries on the basis of ideology. Perhaps Iran is not the “Mecca of Revolutionaries” which Algeria was in the 1960s, but let’s agree that the rate and scope of revolutionary movements worldwide are at a much lower level today, sadly.

Russia may support Syria, for example, but it appears more for Moscow’s self-interest and the idea of national sovereignty – which is the idea of national self-interest – rather than a moral-based ideology.

Call Iran the same as Russia – no insult there – but you cannot deny that Iran supports Palestine for reasons which are clearly to the detriment of their own success, i.e., they do it out of solidarity and morality. Were Iran to recognize Israel they would surely have the international dogs called off them…but Iran is a revolutionary Socialist society, as you are hopefully agreeing with by now.

Iran is also an anti-racist society, like all modern socialist societies.

When it comes to religion they are extremely tolerant of ancient Iranian Zoroastrianism and all of the pre-Prophet Muhammad Abrahamic religions. Any religion after Prophet Muhammad? Well…it is an “Islamic” Revolution, after all.

This is perhaps a pedantic point but an important one on a verbal, Foucauldian level: Has there been any “revolution” in the world since WWI which was not “socialist”? I can’t think of any, because without a socialism component it cannot be a revolution – it can only be a continuation of the capitalist/feudalist/bourgeois status quo, or a military coup.

Empowering people:

The two fundamental tenets of socialism are redistribution of wealth and empowering the average person so that they can reach their full potential. Dismantling the social roadblocks thrown up by capitalism against the non-wealthy has clearly been a major goal of the Islamic Revolution, and I can quite easily prove it has been achieved with a tremendous amount of real-world success.

Since 1990 – when the West’s attack dog of Iraq was beaten off – no country’s Human Development Index has improved more than Iran’s, with the lone exception of South Korea.

Everyone should take notice, especially Socialists, as it is we anti-capitalists who prize human development – not economic development – above all.

That’s why I’m going to leave the Human Development Index as the only proof of success. For me, I have so many other econometrics, anecdotes and personal reflections to prove that Iran has succeeded in creating a new, better, modern society that to do so is quite boring.

Bottom line: It is obvious that I do not have to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Despite the tremendous amount of opposition, violence and propaganda, Iran has advanced the most in the past 3+ decades.

I say “the most” because, unlike South Korea, Iran has done this without 30,000 US troops currently on its soil; it was not preceded by decades of brutal dictatorship which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people (mainly leftists); and they did not collaborate with the Americans in the division of their nation which currently causes the greatest possibility of thermonuclear war.

Iran didn’t get to #1 as many others did: by capitalism and imperialism.

Iran’s recent election had a 73% voter turnout rate, ranking it #12 in the world. Unlike many of these other 11 countries, Iran does not compel citizens to vote. There is obviously tremendous support for the Iranian system from the Iranian people because…they are not blind to success, I would say!

The hardest thing to get people to do when it comes to socialism (or Iran) is to think realistically: Nobody can achieve “perfect” socialism. No country has 100% voter turnout. No country has zero human rights violations.

But for Iran you have add on another layer of misconception: Many of the “restrictions” in Iranian society predate 1979 by centuries: women were largely wearing the hejab before then; unmarried people, especially young women, also lived at home before 1979; alcohol could send you to prison then and now.

My point is: Iran is a culturally conservative nation, and it was like that long, long before 1979. You will have to simply trust me that Iranians don’t need a government to make them want to live in a society which appears conservative to modern Western standards.

Again, Iran is not Amsterdam, LOL! Maybe you can talk about the royal court in Shiraz in the 14th century as being a hotbed of drunken poetic reveling, but this is does not reflect the reality of life for the average person.

Only an Iranian will agree quickly with this statement and move on: Take away the 1979 Revolution and you would still have many of the same rules in place – they would just be enforced informally.

I will, lastly, put it this way: Take away the mullahs, and you still have to deal with my grandmother!!!!!

Today, the birthrate is 1.7 children per woman, the overall literacy rate is 93% and the right-wing Washington DC-based think-tank the Brookings Institution runs dumbfounded articles with headlines like “Are Iranian Women Overeducated?”.

All in 30+ years…and have you thought it was capitalism that did it?!

Socialists who ignore Iran are not really Socialists at all

Do you still want to think that Iran is a country solely motivated by religious radicalism and not the ideals of socialism? Well, then I place you on the right and the left, and that is the point of this article.

It is bad enough that the right (capitalists, imperialists) not only co-opt Socialist ideas as their own (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, affirmative action programs, welfare, free schooling, free nurseries, etc.), but it is laughable when the left refuses to see the leftism in Iran because it does not fit with their preconceived, totally inflexible notions.

Any true Socialist/Communist should realize that attacking Iran is doing a capitalist’s job for them.

And how can someone who proclaims to be a “leftist” have the exact same interpretation of Iran as a right-wing capitalist does?

Again, it is simply laughable that Iran is “not” what it really is.

But this is what always happens: Chinese communism “is not really communism”…despite having 1-party rule, a state-run economy, control over the media, support for Vietnam and North Korea, and the 2nd highest HDI improvement from 1970-2010.

North Korean communism is just a “cult of personality”…despite expelling the Japanese, resisting the Americans, maintaining their independence, security and high-level of education. Cuba is just the Castro dictatorship and, again, not communism.

This is all anti-socialist propaganda – for capitalism there can never be ANY “Socialist success story”.

You remain adamant that you do not want to implement all the principles of the Iranian Islamic Revolution in your country?

Fine, it is your country to decide for as you like. Like I wrote, no worries – Iran hasn’t invaded in 300 years and it sure seems like our military is necessarily focused on defense.

But just because you disagree with some aspects of the 1979 Revolution I encourage you not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I remind you that I needed only one fact to prove that Iran has been improving at a rate which is essentially the best in the world over the last 3 decades – how far below Iran does your country rank, hmm?

I write this article because practically no media in the English language will ever pursue the links between Iran and socialism. We leftists know this not just anti-Iran bias, but a much larger anti-Socialist bias.

However, it is truly suicidal to ignore the left-wing successes in Iran because, even if you reject some of them, Iran has clearly found MANY modern solutions to our MANY modern problems: surely some of them can be of use to you, right? Is Iran ALL wrong?

Of course not – only Satan can be all wrong.

Therefore, I advise those fighting against capitalism and imperialism: Please afford Iran a bit more respect and interest than you would afford Satan!

And now I take our victory lap

I can only laugh at those who say Iran’s revolution has failed!

“Oh really? Who was the puppet that was installed? Who was the king that was restored? What is the name of the popular democratic revolution which replaced the peoples’ one of 1979, because I have not heard of it and I still see many familiar faces from 1979?”

The revolution has succeeded, and I am not sorry to say so.

Not that I care about your opinion – this is for YOUR own benefit: YOU will not win socialism, anti-capitalism or anti-imperialism in your country if you cannot learn from the successes of others.

But sadly, your inability to recognize socialism in Iran imperils all of us, because the people worldwide cannot win in the long term if even like-minded leftists cannot stick together to work against fascism, capitalism and racism.

But Iran, Cuba, China, etc. – we can win enough of these things for ourselves, at least.

We are doing just fine – steady as she goes, eh? All thanks to central planning, as the capitalists veer from crisis to crisis, with the 1% sucking up a greater percentage every time. Our election had huge participation rates, as usual, dwarfing the European cultures who probably want to claim they invented voting, along with everything else. Asia has heard it all before….

For the non-Western readers: I know that the vast majority of you already support Iran. I have talked with too many of you over my life – I know better. I also know that for us “field slaves” we have to give that impression in order to survive, sometimes, or at least to avoid annoyances.

Anyway, many Westerners appear to misunderstand Socialism completely: they don’t realize it is intrinsically a global idea; they think the Franco-German-Russian (European) variety is the only one. More Eurocentrism blinding them to reality, and necessarily limiting them….

But I look across the West and I see nothing but leftist failure after leftist failure: The fall of communism in Russia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the obvious absorption of “left” parties into the dominant right-wing parties, the rise of austerity, the advance of globalization at the expense of national interests….

So the next time you look at Iran, you should applaud it as a rare socialist success. Iranians will certainly keep living their path of creating modern socialism, Inshallah.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

68 Comments

1) First of all lets clarify from where I am writting: I am a leftist latinoamerican, therefore I Totally support any anti-imperialist movement, be it a leftist one (Cuba, DPRK,etc.) Or a conservative one (Ghandi, Perón, etc) so I support and I will keep supporting Iran for their anti-imperialist position.

2) However, I guess you are defining in a wrong way Socialism, not for the religion element (if our own Nicaraguan revolution was leaded by Catholic Bishops meaning my religion can be mixed with socialism why not the most similar branch to catholisism in Islam) but for the economic issue: Socialism since the 1848 in Europe and 1959 in Latinoamerica means, among other things, the expropiation of the ruling class means of production, that doesnt limit to foregin capitalists but t local ones. I know that Iranian revolution expropied the Western capitalist’s assets, however I never found any info regarding any seizing of the factores of the Sha and his friends, maybe due to a limitation to English-wrotten sources. If you could, or anybody btw, some info in that area it would prove definetly the Socialist charcter of Iran.

PD: regarding non-socialist revolutions I would say the Mexican one in 1910’s could be more properly considered a more anarchist/libetarian one

@Yusuf
I agree with the article, and I would like to point out that Socialism does not mean Communism. In my opinion, if the country controls it’s resources, this includes electricity, water, etc. (by control I mean provides them directly to the people). If the education, medical and other essential services are provided by the government, then I call the country socialist. There are also other details, which I may have missed (like bank, money, etc).
This is why some countries had been targeted and destroyed by the imperial powers, and others are currently targeted.

Anyone who has studies Qur’an should know that there is no hypnenated Islam (X-Islam).

003.102 يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ وَلا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ
003.102 O ye who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam.

003.103 وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلا تَفَرَّقُوا وَاذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنْتُمْ أَعْدَاءً فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَكُنْتُمْ عَلَى شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِنَ النَّارِ فَأَنْقَذَكُمْ مِنْهَا كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ
003.103 And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

003.104 وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
003.104 Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.

003.105 وَلا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُوا وَاخْتَلَفُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَأُولَئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty,-

003.106 يَوْمَ تَبْيَضُّ وُجُوهٌ وَتَسْوَدُّ وُجُوهٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ اسْوَدَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ أَكَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ
On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): “Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith.”

003.108 تِلْكَ آيَاتُ اللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَمَا اللَّهُ يُرِيدُ ظُلْمًا لِلْعَالَمِينَ
These are the Signs of Allah: We rehearse them to thee in Truth: And Allah means no injustice to any of His creatures.

The term “Shia-Islam” is no different than “Rachel Dolezal” claiming that she is black.

Hyphenation is a gift of the British empire, just like Palestine, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. In US now we are hyphenated Americans. This is a sickness related to claims to superiority based on racism and ethnicity.

However, Qur’an trumps every human law for followers of Islam. I find term “shia-Islam” that fox news will like to coin.

No one can stop people from claiming even if they claim that they are the tooth fairy. However, those who can tell the difference know that Ms. Dolezal is not black, or a desire to be a woman does not make you one if you have the wrong equipment.

So please stick with Shia or Muslim. Both are fine. Having taken a course taught by idiots does not make a person an expert.

Anyone claiming to be a Muslim, has to believe in Al-Qur’an. in 103 and 105 it clearly forbids sectarian differentiation. So one can be a Wahabi, a Sunni, a Shia, or a Muslim. You cannot be a combination.

Regards,

Nasir

You are off-topic. Please take any further comments to the MFC or related thread. Any further comments posted here which are not on topic will go to the trash. Mod

A huge part of the rich, capitalist class fled Iran. The current population of Beverly Hills is nearly half Iranian! They took hundreds of billions in wealth, and abandoned many businesses and properties.

Ramin, I always read your articles and like them. I was in contact with Iranians in my youth and most of them were Baha’is. The members of their National Spiritual Assembly disappeared without a trace and their most important shrines were demolished during the revolution. I wish Iran well, but this is a problem.

I studied a little Theology and know more about Shia Islam than most Westerners. I even learned some Iranian words.

I speak French, but I am not in France and I am still trying to find out who Macron is. He will soon meet with Putin and Trump. I appreciate your links and look forward to more reports.

Socialism was also very popular in north African and Middle East Arab countries, a local variety called Arab socialism that was somewhat similar to Soviet socialism but also quite different in some other aspects.

After WW2, numerous countries were ruled by anticolonial and socialist inspired movements and leaders. While these regimes were somewhat “anticommunist”, they aligned with Soviet Union, nationalized their economies and followed a policy of secularism, non alignment and anti-imperialism.

Numerous examples:

1) Egypt under Nasser aligned with Soviet Union and nationalized the economy. It’s foreign policies were against Israel and the western colonial powers. After Nasser’s death, Egypt came into the American orbit and adopted neoliberalism in economic policies.

2) Syria under Baath had an alliance with Soviet Union, and implemented central planning and nationalisations. Up to this day the regime remains anti colonial and nationalistic. That’s why Syria is under attack by the West.

3) Libya under Gaddafi was an Arabic socialist country with a peculiar economic/political system and supported national liberation movements. It was the richest African country with a great welfare provision (for North Africa and African standards). The fate of Gaddafi and Libya is well known….

Some other countries include Algeria, South Yemen ( Soviet style state) , Saddam’s Iraq (under Baath party) and even Tunisia.

But even Ethiopia and Somalia (!) had Marxist inspired regimes during cold war.

With the end of USSR, there was a collapse of socialistic regimes world wide.

It is no coincidence that USA has targeted all socialistic countries that survived the end of USSR such as iraq, Syria, Libya etc They want to conquer new markets and exploit their resources. Socialism is not good for the business of multinational corporations….

What a disaster the dissolution of USSR was.
Humanity went backwards many many years. …

But “the left wing” and the socialists do not sleep in a same room for some longer time. Today’s “leftists” are the servants of of the darkest fascist world has ever seen. It is more truth that socialism stays on the right side of modern political arena (struggling for the people, and not for elites).

Western populations need to wake [deleted] up and stop behaving like brainless zombies.

ISIS has reportedly claimed responsibility for the carnage in Manchester, but how many Britons will get mad at their government for coddling ISIS and those who covertly and overtly support it?

Israel in particular has been open and vocal about their “strategic preference” for ISIS over Assad, but has never ever been confronted about this by the leaders of any Western country that has been targeted by the group, the UK included.

These zombies are seemingly content to have their governments pour scorn and sanctions on a country like Iran, that is at the forefront of the struggle against ISIS.

Saudi Arabia and Israel gets praised and Iran gets sanctioned.
Only after this gross anamoly gets corrected can Western sheeple expect any let up in the terror being visited upon them.

Saudi Arabia, the stream from which all Wahhabi terror flows, continues to receive both military and political support from Western quarters, and Western audiences refuse to take their respective governments to task over this.

Iran and Russia are villified daily by the MSM and the corrupt politicians that take their que from their Zionist overlords.

The people need to drain the swamp themselves or just give up already and get used to their subjugation.

I believe, when the author is speaking about West Christians, he doesn’t consider The Orthodox one?

And else – I am not sure that Christians are the main enemies of Islam: I tend to believe that Judeo-Protestant (Anglo-Zionist) groups of power, who generally do not believe in anything, except money and power, do hardly planing a war between everybody – Shia ând Suni, Muslims and Christians, etc, etc.

In the recent elections all the candidates received the same amount of public funding and Media access.

There were no Sheldon Adelson or George Soros to funnel $millions in donations and no Koch Brothers to make huge contributions, can you imagine?

In the US, presidential campaings now regularly cost in excess of $1/2 Billion .

The January 2010 ruling by the US Supreme Court – Citizen United vs FEC – guarantees that elections go to the highest bidders.
But dont tell this to the average American, the poor thing is still delusional having democracy and freedom of choice…..

If, they do manage to defy the confines of the Matrix and get someone like Trump elected, they then have to contend with a push back from the Derp State, that see their candidate neutralized and a kid called Kushner put in charge.

Jewish money is useless in Iran, no wonder they hate the Islamic Republic so much….

Thank you Ramin for another interesting and informative article. “Iran supports Palestine out of solidarity and morality.” This sums up two concepts so true in socialism and so foreign to unfettered capitalism. What’s in it for me? you always hear.

Yet I think that most good hearted people agree with most socialist policies. It’s just that many people are so ignorant of what they are. I remember reading about some American college students once who were asked if they believed in the words: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. The majority of them of them did. Some of them even thought those words were in the U.S. Constitution…

Between the slogans yelled by politicians, I think it’s preferable to have a better understanding of each others nations. Yes, I know that in ‘power politics’ this doesn’t count, but I like to form opnions over facts, not slogans.

Yet a few remarks. First, you stated accurately that Iran hasn’t posed a threat to other nations. Historically this is right. My guess is that Hezbollah is seen as a threat. We both know that there is a large amount of ‘contact’ between Hezbollah and Iran. Hezbollah in the South of Lebanon happens to possess about 60000 rockets, meant to hurl at Israel. We can argue about that, but I can imagine that in Israel this is not seen as a friendly gesture.

To illustrate the point that often things have many faces, it’s also a fact that Israel is the only nation in the Middle-East where Palestinians have the same civil rights as other civilians. Yes, about 30% of the Israeli population is muslim. They are the people that did not flee the nation in 1948, plus their children and grandchildren. Yet leaders of Iran have repeatedly said that Israel needs to be destroyed. At the same time, Tehran has the largest Jewish community outside Israel.

At the same time, a large American aircraft carrier is positioned permanently in the street of Hormuz, near the Iranian coast. Also, not beaming friendly gestures. Actually, the Americans were annoyed by the presence of Iranian vessels in Iranian waters, that also every now and then flew drones over their ship. We might feel the irony over this, were it not outright dangerous.

I don’t think it is a good idea for NATO to attack Iran. The Saker has already written a detailed article about that. All kinds of reasons will be sloganned, but it is as always: control by the self-proclaimed ‘exceptionals’.

In general I agree with your comment. But would like to expand on a couple of points from it.

1.Yes,Hezbollah is seen as a threat to them by Israel. But why is that so? Did Hezbollah just strangely decide one day,”hmmm,lets be anti-Israeli,just for a lark”. No,they didn’t. Israel invaded and savaged Lebanon during the 1980’s.Tried to destroy Lebanon as a state. Thousands of people were killed. And ignited a civil war that left Lebanon horribly devastated. They continued for decades to bomb Lebanon at their pleasure. And continued to occupy much of the South of Lebanon for decades longer.Then once again invaded Lebanon in 2006. Hezbollah was formed as a resistance organization to the Israeli crimes against Lebanon.And their missile’s what ever the number is. Is a deterrent to Israel trying to invade Lebanon again.Like most events concerning Israel.The Israelis play the victim to try and hide their crimes against the “real” victim. In this case Lebanon.

2. Yes,around 20-30 of Israel’s population is Palestinian.Not counting the millions of Palestinians Israel enslaves in the occupied territories known as “the West Bank and Gaza”.Nor the other several million refugee’s forced to leave the country by the Israelis. If you add the millions of Palestinians in all of pre-1947 Palestine,they make up around 50% or more of today’s population of the area.And if those forced out are added. They make up probably 70% or so of the population.

The vast majority of the displaced (inside or outside) Palestinians did not “flee” their lands. They were forced out,expelled by Israeli terror during the years from 1947 until today.Those remaining inside the pre-1967 Israeli borders (but not the millions enslaved in the “occupied” areas) do legally have “equal rights”. But what does that even mean in the Israeli context. There are rules (some written,many unwritten) that forbid Palestinians to live in areas with Jews. The public land in Israel (most land in Israel) is administered by a Jewish agency. Which lets it out to Jews only. The Israeli education system gives less money for Palestinian students than that given to Jewish Israeli students.And except for small government posts. Palestinian Israelis have no position in the government of Israel.The military,one of Israels “main pillars” is almost entirely Jewish.Until recently (I’m not positive about today. Though I think it still is),no Palestinian was allowed to serve in the military of a state they make up around a quarter of the population of. Carefully “vetted” Arab political parties are allowed in Israel. But there is an agreement within the Jewish governing parties that they won’t work with them. So basically,they have no role in Israels governance.The police forces and security forces,another prime “pillar” in Israel. Except for very low levels,is closed to any but Jews in Israel. Palestinians at the “very best” inside Israel itself would be considered as “second class” citizens anywhere else. And at worst an “oppressed minority” anywhere in Europe. Jews,in Europe or the America’s would howl in horror if forced to live under the rules that non-Jews in Israel proper live under. And as for living under an Israeli style rule in the occupied territories. The Jews inside and outside Israel wouldn’t tolerant that for one minute. So,the claim of Palestinians having “equal rights” in Israel is as false as the pre-civil rights era US claims that Blacks in the US South “enjoyed” equal rights.Under the so-called “separate but equal” system.

@Rob. I don’t buy your Hasbarah agitprop. You say, “My guess is that Hezbollah is seen as a threat”. “Seen as a threat” only by Israel and FUKUSA; that is, by a tiny handful of countries which have repeatedly attempted to subjugate Lebanon – and failed. These 4 perpetual troublemakers like to think of themselves as “the mighty handful” because they maintain very expensive armies and a limitless supply of cluster bombs – but they were stopped at the Bekaah valley by the Syrian Army, and kicked out of Lebanon by Hezb’Allah. Sore losers.

It’s important to keep in mind that Israeli strategic imperatives are different than one might expect. For example, Israel’s “right to self defense” means that Israel claims the right to use military force at any time, against any group or individual for any reason. Any potential target that attempts to inhibit Israel’s ability to do this (for example by acquiring anti-aircraft capability) is regarded as engaging in a provocative action and is automatically a threat.

More generally, any country that has not recognized Israel’s “right to exist” is also regarded as a threat. The phrase “right to exist” also has a unique meaning to Israel that applies to no other State. That is, that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State.

It’s considered an outrage when Israeli jets, bombing targets in Syria, are fired upon by the Syrian armed forces. This is considered an extreme and peculiar reaction for most countries, even the US. By this logic neither Syria nor Lebanon have a “right to self-defense” since granting such to those countries would interfere with Israel’s “right to self-defense”.

I second this observation. Iran had been actively supporting Hezbollah, interfering in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, through thinly veiled subversion. How is that non-intervention? I see the claim repeated over and over to win the narrative of nonviolence but they are the cause of continued friction in Palestine/Israel, the gulf states, the Indian subcontinent, and even in rest of the world.

About democracy in Iran, do people know that in order to be a President, you have to be a Shia. If you are a Muslim and have been living in Iran, and are actually a son of the soil, you still cannot become the President. Compare this to Pakistan, it is less than 10% shia, It was an Islamic republic before Iran, in Pakistan except for a brief spell, the government has always been shia.

So is it fair to call Israel Apartheid state, while Iran meets and beats Israel in these metrics.

If would like the author to explain, why President Ahmadinejad was not allowed to run? What criterion did he not meet? To call such arbitrary removal of a respected, truthful, simple man, who is not only educated by logical and can reason with the best of them (recall his appearance at Columbia university) a democratic act, is being disingenuous to the extreme.

Regards,

Nasir

Moderator, if you think it too much for Mr. Mazaheri to handle please show me the courtesy of posting it in MFC or emailing git back to me.

The idea that Iran is somehow comparable with Israel in the sense of apartheid is, frankly, absurd.

Iran’s “intervention” in many of the countries you have named was at the request of the government – Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq. Their role in Yemen is limited – except according to Western propaganda. In Bahrain the problem is not Iranian involvement – it is the mistreatment of the majority by the ruling monarchy.

Ahmadinejad was not allowed to run because he had already been president for 2 terms. This is an informal rule, and quite common in many countries.

Dear Armin Mazaheri:
What a pleasant surprise. I did not think I will see my comment posted, let alone a reply by you.
Good deal. Let’s look at your reply:

1. Two thing about your first reply:
a) Are you suggesting that a Non Shia, at least in theory, can be president of Iran?
b) In the case of President Ahmadinejad—the rule in Iran is more than two consecutive terms. Please look up your own law. President Ahmadinejad was running after a break which is constitutional and legal by Irani law. Your are using “term limits” disingenuously.

I hope when are talking about Democracy, we are referring to a society where a plurality of the governed give their free consent to be governed by someone. To make it more illustrative, let’s assume that this plurality is by a single undisputed vote (recall Florida Bush vs Gore, 2000) on one hand, and on the other hand it is by the margin of 99% of vote. A democracy requires that no matter the size of the majority, the minority still enjoys the right and protections of citizenship and
In your first reply you claim that, “because other countries do it, it is fine”? Just because others do it does not make it right. No one is calling Algeria or Tunisia the beacons of democracy. Nor is Burma a shining star on the hill. Now that people have viewed Su Kyi in action, people are realizing that giving a good talk is not the same as being principled: This is the textbook fallacy of “Bandwagoning”.

Now let’s examine your second reply with leftover material from your first reply as well as the totality of your article, state some facts and ask some questions:

1. Israel does give full political and legal rights to Muslims who live in Israel proper.

3. Furthermore:
a. Are Kurds (linguistic Arabs and largely non-Shia) who live in Iran as a not repressed minority? Why do we never hear of Irani Kurds?
b. What happened to Zoroastrians?
c. What happened to the Baha’i’s?
i. If this is not equivalent of a genocide/ethnic cleaning what it?
d. Are women not forced to wear equivalent of Burka? You call it chador–the difference is just semantics.

4. Which Afghan government invited Irani interference?
5. Syria appears to have done it, but I cannot find a formal invitation—I can find an invitation to Russians? I also cannot come by any formal Iraqi invitation for Iran to come and “help”.
6. You say “Yemen” is not much. How much is much?
7. You say that in Bahrain, Iran is trying to protect someone? Who? Persians or Shia? Is this not the same equivocation we see between Jews and Israel? Of course we know that Iran wants to protect some people in Saudi Arabia; I wonder who they are? By your logic, we can forget about internal matters of a state. Since according to your logic US is well within her rights to lay down the law everywhere according to our own sensibilities. Is that what Iran wants?

8. I don’t think India, asked Iran to carve out a minority (Muslim) country (Pakistan) out of it, to be run by another minority (shia), as the proxy for Iran to cause havoc in the region while Pakistani Muslims who had and have absolutely no role in decision making are blamed for the actions of Shia elite who govern the country, control its banks, media, and government from lowest level of civil service to the highest political office. Almost 50% of flag officers in the air force are Shia? Did India or Pakistan invite Iran to help out destroy their populace? Did they want to be misinformed them through their media, textbooks.

9. Vilayat a faqih, is the antithesis of democracy. It literally means the “rule of (provision of protection by) religious scholars”. I don’t know if you hold yourself out to be a theologian, if you are we can discuss it in detail.

I was informed by the site that my postings were construed to be anti-Shia, I argued that I was merely stating the facts—all of the above observations are simply aimed at pointing out the logical discrepancies of your claims about Iran’s pacifist nature. I am neither anti Shia, nor anti Iran. In fact, I was married to an Irani for close to two decades.

I hope you can see why a self-thinking person who engages in critical reading will find these pronouncements questionable at the minimum and willfully dishonest at the extreme. I hope your article expresses a youthful and exuberant take of a garden variety sports team fan rather than a serious thesis. In which case, this article does not rise of the level of a serious attempt at informing people.

I do acknowledge that you were giving your personal rationalizations/justification for believing your system. However, if you think you have helped people—who are not already sold on this—understand a theocratic system packaged as a new kind of democracy, you have bungled it badly.

I bid you peace and a great weekend,

Best regards,

Nasir

Notes from moderator (ju).
1. I approved this comment for posting here because it appears not to break any moderation rules.
2. I do not have the technical tools to “move” a comment from one thread to another. This means that as you submit comments, it’s important that you evaluate for yourselves the appropriate thread to post to. If you think your comment may be unacceptable for one particular thread but acceptable in the Moveable Feast Cafe (MFC) then please make your submission to the MFC. Thank-you for your understanding. Respectfully, moderator (ju)

These are questions you raised of the author, I hope it’s ok with the moderator if I reply

1. Are you suggesting that a non shia, in theory, can become the president of Iran

You would have to see this as more of a political question than an ethnic one. And you need to answer this question also. In the region that Iran exists, would it expedient for them to risk someone from outside their circle to be take power. The strongest critics to the Iranian system have been internal, like Ayatollah Khoie or Montazeri. And the Iranian State was hostile to them, they were not just shia but Ayatollahs.

b. Ahmadinejad was needed by the state to confront the enemies of the state (according to various blocs within Iran). Now his purpose is finished and he would probably do more harm than good to them (those interests also).

You may be right about the principle of two consecutive terms. In 2005, Rafsanjani was being barred for that reason, and he stated that I’m a pillar of the revolution, and he did run, but lost. For ahmadinejad, Since most Iranians if not all are happy that he’s been barred. Why is this even a point here?

These points

2
a. Assassinations.
Most revolutionary governments, or beliefs, or even religions for that matter follow an arc. They are aggressive, zealous, and protective in the beginning and taper off over time. Iran has as far as I know and read, only assassinated Iranian dissidents and internal enemies. The targets have mostly been traitors to the regime or system. Israel on the other hand has assassinated Palestinians, Iranians, Germans, Italians, Canadians, that I have read off, and Americans in times of war. So most Iranian assassination victims were either Iranians or at the beginning of the regime or those during war. There are always exceptions.

b. Are you referring to targeted killings in conflict zones or in Pakistan? Please specify, or actually, don’t.

c. Spheres of influence. Every state is guilty of this. Iran does this pragmatically, through shared interests or political blocs that shares it’s views. It does not subvert or carry out interference of the sort that the Americans or the Israelis did to it in the past. The Saudis have a different approach. They spread their poisonous beliefs of Ibn taymiyah. Forever corrupting the host.

d. Victimhood? First they are a proud people and don’t ask for anyone’s pity or empathy. Second, if they did, they would still be justified. Both as Iranians and as Shias they have been treated badly by Arabs, and the Muslims, and the West.

e. In my personal interactions with the Iranians, I have never found them to be racist. It’s the Arabs who are notorious for being racist, who treat others, Pakistanis include, as sub human, and the ones who grovel to the white skin.
Maybe you are a bit intimidated by them, which could be the reason you see them as such. Sorry for the personal approach, but this also happens at times and is a possibility.

f. This is a religious argument. It goes away from the topic. But Mohammad spoke of several nations (paths/divisions) being part of his nations, and that only one will be on the right path. If you don’t think yours is the right one, please keep studying. The Iranians believe they are on that path. You can’t fault them for believing that they are right. Every single interaction, even the most religious Iranians, I have found them humble. Even the ex tudeh commies have been sweet and polite. It’s in their very culture and language. What the whole world finds sweet, you dislike. Perhaps the problem really does lie elsewhere. Your Shah type expats might be the proud Aryan types.

Furthermore

3 please read about operation Mersad. The Kurds played a major role in helping Iran crush the MEK (Iraqi sponsored) offensive. In the beginning of the revolution, they (the Kurds) did suffer , but then so did everyone that acted against the govt. They are more or less happy in Iran. Unless you can enlighten me otherwise.

b. Please ask hazarate Umar, the second sunni caliph that conquered Iran as to what happened to them. That was an Arab conquest.
There are studies that I have read that speak about the level of corruption the Zoroastrian religion back then had reached and that most of the population accepted Islam as they saw it as fair. The caste system was very strong in the Zoroastrians. The priest class had access to the women of all classes.
Zorastrians are today found in India, the West, and in Iran. In Iran they are free to follow their faith. They have tours that take them to Shiraz and Yazd. There has also been done reverse migration of Indian zorastrians settling in Iran. Also there is no inter marrying in the zorastrians. The class that remains today was the priest class of back then. They were what you blame the Iranians of being, racist and followers of a caste system. The Iranians threw this beliefs out.

c. This is another complex topic. Can be approached from a number of points.
First, all great powers rule by dividing. The British did this in the best and most refined way. In Iran, they lacked a great division of society, the minorities were too much of a minority age too far away from the centre of power. The Iranians see the baha’i as a political tool of the British. Bahaullah was known as a drug addict and was repeatedly jailed but released by the British. It (baha’ism) was patronised under the Shah. So after the revolution it was the enemy, a tool of imperialism. Since nabuvat ends with Mohammad, this faith was seen as illigetimate and since most followers were first generation, they were regarded as apostates. There is a debate in Iran now whether second and third generation baha’is are apostates. So although, atrocities occurred, the state has matured and a lot was to do with self preservation.

d. Are women….

Yes, there is a compulsion to wear the head scarf. Only in shrines and govt offices is the chador compulsory. Most young Iranians wear this very very provocatively also. And very stylishly. The enforcement is also not that strict and rigid. But it’s a lot different than the Sunni niqab. The difference is a lot more than semantics. Please google

But Iran refrained. And Iran has backed and helped parties that were logical and rational actors. The Hazaras don’t go around stopping buses, offloading the sunnis, asking them to open their shirts to see marks of mourning, and shooting them in their heads. The Taliban do that, Pakistan, Saudi back them.

5. There is a mutual protection pact between Iran and Syria, signed sometime in 2004-5. They don’t need an invitation. And why should they cc you a copy?

“On 16 June 2006 the defense ministers of Iran and Syria signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the “common threats” presented by Israel and the United States. Details of the agreement were not specified, however the Iranian defense minister Najjar said “Iran considers Syria’s security its own security, and we consider our defense capabilities to be those of Syria.” The visit also resulted in the sale of Iranian military hardware to Syria.[13] In addition to receiving military hardware, Iran has consistently invested billions of dollars into the Syrian economy”

8. I have heard that when the pig eating Jinnah was forming the state of Pakistan he used to tell his friends he’s forming a shia country, a first for that time, Iran was not an Islamic state then. At least get your sequence of events right.
I have heard that post were allotted to the muhajiroon based on their shia belief. And there was a hold of the shia on institutions, but over time, Sunni murder of shia intellectuals (actors, teachers, scientist, politicians, doctors and so on) has reversed this trend. Your beloved Pakistan is now a proper Sunni terrorist State, according to most of your neighbours. Nothing to worry.

9. Islam was never a democracy. It was always a faith to be led by those selected by God. Why not debate the initial “democracy” of Islam before bashing Iran.

Yes, your anti shia bias is very apparent. It extends to your view of Iran also. If you wanted to confirm this, you can be sure of it.

4. The provincial govt of Herat under Ismail Khan. He went so far as to say, being a Sunni, that Iran is the only Islamic country. The Hazaras and their political block? The invasion and murder of Iranian diplomats was also casus belli for an invasion.

But Iran refrained. And Iran has backed and helped parties that were logical and rational actors. The Hazaras don’t go around stopping buses, offloading the sunnis, asking them to open their shirts to see marks of mourning, and shooting them in their heads.

In terms of fallacies: you engage in equivocation, bandwagoning, ad-hominem attacks, hasty generalizations, “I have heard”, Wikipedia quotes, and other gutter level tricks–perhaps you should apply for a speech writer for Trump.

These are rationalizations and justifications, not arguments. You went off topic by a mile. I note it with alarm that it passed through moderation.

For example, you point out to “I have heard” but give examples of your students. In other words when you indulge, it’s fine. You accuse without any facts, just bile, and mock a Wikipedia link.

I don’t think there is any point in replying to you further. Since nothing will suffice.

“They are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not (to the right path)”

Quran 2:18

There seems to be a lot of frustration and anger within you, and bitterness. Wish you the best of luck, won’t indulge you in the future unless what you write may affect the perceptions of others. Which I guess was your intention. My intention was to try and make sure your skewed perception does not affect others, and that they have a chance to search for themselves.

“First of all you may not reply for Mr. Mazaheri: that is rude!”

You have some misplaced sense of self importance too. Your sense of self righteousness was evident from your quoting the Quran to give yourself some moral high ground. Please get off your high horse, you are just a human being.

“But these Western radicals are a minority who simply cannot accept that spirituality cannot be rubbed out, largely because they see it as a choice or a social conditioning instead of a part of many people’s intrinsic nature (if not theirs)”.

There are few cultural traits that I have found to be almost universal, and shared among societies from ancient Greece, to pre-Colombian (how’s that for a West-centered adjective) America to modern China. One of those is religion, in its various forms and variations. I know of no civilisations that didn’t create its own.

Another is musical scales: each civilisation creating their own, with a huge variety having been brought into existence.

Is it a coincidence that the very same strain of intellectuals that promoted this “New Left”, like e.g. the Congress for Cultural Freedom (see Frances Stonor Saunder’s book “Who paid the piper”) were the very same that tried to push atonal crap like Arnold Schoenberg’s and Iannis Xenakis’?

Is it a coincidence that they push for a deconstruction of everything from painting (Jackson Pollock) to national identities (Ernest Gellner, Eric Hobsbaum, Benedict Anderson) to the mere act of understanding reality (post modernists)?

A great piece — thank you, Ramin Mazaheri. The prevalent attitudes in the West, regardless of the bogus “left/right” divide, towards Iran as well as her exact opposite, Saudi Arabia, are revealing to say the least. Westerners’ judgment amounts to total horseshit, as usual.

You wrote:

“But these Western radicals are a minority who simply cannot accept that spirituality cannot be rubbed out “

Exactly. Hence their hatred of anyone and anybody not impressed by their ‘ersatz’ spirituality focused on gender confusion, perversion, and “anti-authoritarianism” (the latter of course making a permanent exception for the authority of George Soros). So the leaderships of Iran, Russia, Syria etc. are pure anathema to them. Saudi Arabia doesn’t concern them, because it is a country propping up their decadent Western lifestyles.

It is an undeniable fact that the current Islamic Republic of Iran has far less blood on its hands than most – and Iran has not invaded a country in 300 years!
—
I would like to like Iran. But before that I must ask a question:
– in Bosnia & Hercegovina, and later on Kosovo, there were some jihadists, extremely cruel cutthroats, which made awful crimes aganist our Serbian people. They were said to be armed and trained by Iranian security officers.

If it realy was so, how can we now like with Iranian people each other, do we have to wait for the next war with Jihadists to see if they have changed their methods and aims?

Hi Dule,
Iran has not recognised Kosovo.
As far as I know the muslim extremists in both Bosnia and Kosovo are sponsored by Saudi Arabia. There is even a street in Riyadh named after their leader Alija Izetbegović for his “achievement” of bringing wahabism to Europe..

“ask the Iranian regime what the hell they thought they were doing collaborating in a CIA op”

Sadly, you are correct. Iran did follow into the same trap as the rest of the Muslim world. Simply put – either they got it wrong or they could not resist the pressure to get involved. Or a combo of both. Either way, the Iranians were just as wrong as all the other Muslims on the war in Bosnia. Sad, but true.

Still, this is the only major mistake the Islamic Republic of Iran made in its history – not many nations have had a wiser foreign policy than Iran and their diplomats and analysts are still world class.

Socialism is about how the fruits are shared. The principle is everyone gets proportional to what they put in. With this in mind, a real socialist country would not have any poverty or extremely rich people. Socialist principles also suggest that any form of employment unless employed for the public is a form of being subject to exploitation. Therefore, any large private enterprise, by definition, runs against socialist principles. But, as far as I can see, Iran is full of “businessmen” who stay close to mullahs and get their cuts

I know that there is a possibility to interpret Islam, and its islamic law when it comes to economic matters, as a version of socialism. But, I don’t see that is applied in Iran.

Ramin I appreciate your enlightening reports on Press TV and I support the Iranian government’s anti imperialist and anti Zionist stance but I disagree with what you put forward in this article. There is a hard core in the Iranian state which controls the armed forces and the security apparatus, much of the economy(privately), radio an TV and the judiciary. The main reason that the majority of the educated and urban population voted for Rouhani was really a desperate attempt at slowing further consolidation and concentration of power at the hands of a this small group. Even the more insightful and rational part of the principalist camp supported Rouhani. The situation somehow resembles 1930’sJapan with the danger of war at the back every informed citizen’s mind.
I also praise Iran’s social democratic policies in the field of housing, healthcare and education but this is a class society with worst aspects inequality, corruption and repression and what one must concentrate upon is its future development. Will we end up in a stagnant state like Algeria or even Saddam’s Iraq or will we be able to develop into something like Turkey before the coup, with a vibrant civil society,political parties, free press and free elections? So for now any talk of socialism is way way too early. Let’s build a bourgeois democracy first! like the the one you are living under in France.As for Foucault, he was all for resistance against power and i see the results of the recent elections in Iran as a clear example of what he meant when he said where there is power there is resistance.

It is absurd to believe that Christianity plays any major or even prominent role in the UK elections. Probably comparable in France. Yes yes of course in the US but elsewhere in the West? I cannot see it. In the past perhaps, as in half a century back…but not now.

Other than which, an interesting piece. I think the general opinion of Iran at least in the more educated, more capable areas of the West, I.e. not the US…is that reports – clearly designed to sew fear and hate – often paint the religious power in Iran as medieval and brutal. The religious courts still can appear horrifically unfair, hugely backward toward a homosexuals and appallingly oppressive of females.

I believe areas more modern like Tehran are more progressive, and hope so, yet as with kadyrov in chechyna, no matter the general direction or decency, some of the Islamic laws and punishments will always be sickening to western heads and hearts. Regardless of any Christian beliefs. It’s more simply about equality, not religious conditioning.

Yet maybe I am wrong. Maybe women raped or seeking abortions or find a lover instead of an arranged marriage are not brutalized or killed? Maybe medieval punishments like blinding by acid or losing a hand are not really happening?

I’m against any system which has any relgious core or leading. Though found the article interesting. Cheers….

1. The author wrongly suggested far stronger a religious sentiment, which is traditionally against the Muslim faith, of the West. This was not just a sweeping generalisation, but misleading and inncaurate. The Islamic faith as an enemy is a construct, designed for public consumption. The Saudis are our finest bedfellows in the region alongside out masters Israel…also there are very few – outside of the US which is demonstrably the dumbest population on the planet – in the west who are religious. Religion was mentioned clearly by the author.

2. Beyond the socialism focus is a relgious underpinning, of policy and legislation directed and affected by Islamic law, much if which is very much against the foundations of socialism.

So, comrade, no need to apologise, possibly I was less than clear on my brief comment. In short, it’s like talking of Hitler as a socialist without any mention of his imperialist brutality and extreme racism.

@Johan
I am not sure if I should be proud to be called “comrade” for knowing the difference or not.
And yes, there is a difference between National-Socialism and International Socialism. As the history showed N-S was nothing but dressed up old fashion Imperialism.
Unfortunately it’s the Globalism using international socialism’s slogans and theories that drove us to the sorry state of affairs in today’s world. I am guessing Globalism is it’s (I-S) extension used by the same bunch of people.
Phil Butler wrote an excellent article:http://journal-neo.org/2017/05/21/they-killed-the-tsar-now-the-globalists-target-putin/
The copy of this article, but with pictures, can also be found at Russia Insider.

Thank you, Ramin, this has been a long time coming, I have only been able to squeak from a relatively poorly informed corner about this for years. You are a brilliant writer, what’s more, which certainly doesn’t hurt! (AMong other things, I reviewed Alastair Crooke’s ‘Islamic Resistance’ for Opednews several years ago.

The “spending spree” is especially smart. Persia now has CONTRACTS with large corporations in Europe and America. A contract is much harder to break than a treaty or a political promise, and large corporations are more steady than Western governments.

Iran’s recent election had a 73% voter turnout rate, ranking it #12 in the world. Unlike many of these other 11 countries, Iran does not compel citizens to vote.

This is inaccurate for 3 reasons:
1. The #12 ranking is based on the Pew Research chart for just the 35 OECD countries. Iran and scores of other countries where there is voting are not in the OECD. So inserting Iran into the Pew Research chart greatly exaggerates Iran’s rank in the world.
2. The 11 countries ranking over 75% in the Pew Research chart are: Belgium, Sweden, South Korea, Denmark, Australia, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, and Finland. Of these, only Belgium and Australia, not “many”, have compulsary voting.
3. The Pew Research chart is based on percentages of Voting Age Population. The 73% voter turnout reported for Iran’s recent election is based on percentage Registered Voters. Not every Iranian citizen 18 or older is registered. From Iranian demographics, voter turnout was about 68% of Voting Age Population. This adds Italy to OECD countries having a higher percentage.

Iran’s 68% exceeds the European OECD country median of 63%. Compare this with: Our election had huge participation rates, as usual, dwarfing the European cultures who probably want to claim they invented voting, along with everything else.
Mr. Mazaheri has intelligent things to say. Why inject silly exaggerations?

A grossly exploitative economic system such as the present form of unbridled capitalism depends by necessity on massive amounts of non-stop propaganda to contradict or muddle any hints that alternative systems could actually be better for societty as whole. The process goes as far as creating scientific imprimaturs to lend legitimacy to the notion that neodarwinian dog-eat-dog, red in tooth and claw, is the most natural state. The propaganda is succesful mainly because it is relentless and because it works with a very effective system of supression/censorship. For example, ty getting this article published in any mainstream publication. In the very unlikely event it would get published, you could expect a frothing avalanche of comments and hit articles accusing the author of being burdened by an unbearable “ideological” load that renders his reasoning unreliable, his utterances suspect…
for “ideology”, as Terry Eeagleton put it, is like halitosis: always what the other person has:https://tinyurl.com/Ideology-An-Introduction

A research work that is badly needed is an analysis of what happens to societies (in terms of basic human development measurements) after they adopt socialist programs, in comparison with how they were beefore (e.g. Cuba, Iran.., ). And conversely, what happens when these systems are forcibly dismantled in favor of capitalist neoliberal fervor (Soviet Union, Eastern Europe).

I’d like to thank everyone for the kind words about my article! They are much appreciated, so thanks for taking the time to write them.

As one commenter said – people truly want to know the truth about Iran, because there is so much disinformation out there. I’m very glad to provide my thoughts and I thank The Saker for providing such a great forum with so many intelligent and open-minded readers.

Ramin, these kind of essays are exactly the very best way to serve your country as an individual : Tell the outside world about Iran and how life is there today. I mean practical life for the commoner, not political theories.

As for prejudices, westerners still think today that there are stonings and beheadings always and everywhere (from the viewpoint of the common guy), I guess. This is where you might focus with your enlightenment work.

Having grown up in the West, I remember the day when your revolution began and when Khomeini took the aircraft form Paris. From that day on the western propaganda machine turned your country and its citizens into the evil incarnated. Iran was made taboo. And it is partly still taboo today.

As for myself, my image of Iran has totally changed, to the positive. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad looked a bit “wild” with his beard, but he spoke out the truth like I have seldom heard a high-ranking key politician speak out the truth before.

How advanced do you judge Iranian technology nowadays? In use goods industry, in automotive? I mean purely Iranian companies. Is it interesting for them to join forces with foreign companies, for common development for example? I am personally interested in this. As you are the only – and most sympathetic – Iranian I know I dare ask the question.

Ramin, again, I’d like to encourage you to become “the voice of Iran” in the West. One reason Libya went under is because it had no voice in the media in the west.

PS: As someone who likes alcohol, do I have chances to stay in the country unharmed? Just asking…

“PS: As someone who likes alcohol, do I have chances to stay in the country unharmed? Just asking”

As a Muslim one is not allowed to guide people to what is haram. You cannot carry haram for them or buy haram for them. And alcohol is haram.

That aside, there are, I have heard, a few factories that used to export alcohol and then were closed after the revolution. But some argued that they were for export to non Muslims and were started again. Don’t know their current status.
Most 5 star hotels, like istighlal, serve alcohol to foreigners. There are shops that do sell pork but state at the entrance that it’s for non Muslims. The Armenian (Christian) club in Seoul, Tehran must be serving it too.

I see a comment to your reply which is dishonest propaganda by a scholar.

I think due to some Irani law, you may not buy alcohol in Iran, save from diplomatic enclaves. It is just local law, just like you cannot chew gum in Singapore.

However, this restriction is most certainly not Muslim (read Qur’anic) law! Islam does not impose any restriction on the dietary habits of anyone other than a Muslim (which are only four), and consumption of brews is treated differently than hard liquor–only that you cannot worship when you are under the influence and a suggestion that it for your own good.

This is an example of propaganda which freely conflates Iran, Shia, and Islam.

What Nasir posts, the following is probably law that is derived from Umar and the sahabas changes to Islamic law, also referred to as innovation, like your tarawi prayers:

“and consumption of brews is treated differently than hard liquor–only that you cannot worship when you are under the influence and a suggestion that it for your own good.”

Compromise to accommodate the actions of erring companies, that is sunni Islamic law. And after rules such as these, mr Nasir expects there to be just one law and one Islam. If I had a choice between Sunni Islam and no Islam, i’d choose the latter. Don’t want to follow your caliphs or their whims, when they were either sober or had a few brews.

Qur’an the final source of guidance for Muslims and all humans, mentions three words to describe the wine (Khamr), Sakar(intoxication, being under the influence), and purified wine (Rihiqin).

The issue of wine or intoxication (due to wine of some drug) is mentioned in:
2:219, 4:43, 5:90-91, 12:36,41, 15:72, 16:67, 22:2

All of these do not forbid the consumption of wine, there clear disdain for intoxication or stupefied behavior. However, none is asked to step enforce it.

47:15 and 83:25 use wine, and purified wine. Since it relates to events after death, where some will be given purified wine, or good tasting wine–we can safely not concern ourselves with the enforcement of stuff after death.

That is sum total of Qur’anic references to the wine an intoxication. Anyone who wants to impose this in the name of God or his guidance (Al-Qur’an) is overreaching.

Qur’an is not the boogeyman that it is cracked out to be by some people who have personal or financial interests.

5- Imam al-Rida (as) said, ‘Allah forbade alcohol due the corruption that accompanies it, and due to the way in which it alters the drinkers’ reason, and how it encourages them to deny Allah, Mighty and Exalted, and to slander Him and His messenger, and for all the other accompaniments of corruption and murder.’[`Uyoun Akhbar al-Ridha (as), v. 2, p. 98, no. 2]

The Consequence of Drinking Alcohol

6- Imam Ali (as) said, ‘When the alcoholic one meets Allah, Mighty and Exalted, he will meet him as an idol worshipper.’[al-Khisal, p. 632, no. 10]

7- Imam Ali (as) said, ‘The one who drinks an intoxicant, his prayers will not be accepted for forty days and nights.’[al-Khisal, p. 632, no. 10]

Interacting with an Alcohol Drinker

8- The Prophet (SAWA) said, ‘When one who drinks alcohol speaks, do not believe him, and if he proposes do not marry him, if he falls sick do not visit him, and if he dies do not attend his funeral, and do not entrust him with anything.’[bihar al-Anwar, v. 79, p. 127, no. 7]

9- – The Prophet (SAWA) said, ‘The alcohol drinker is like sulphur, so keep away from him lest he pollute you with his stench for sulphur has a bad stench.’[bihar al-Anwar, v. 79, p. 150, no. 64]

How an Alcohol Drinker Will be Resurrected

10– Imam al-Sadiq (as) said, ‘The ones who have quenched themselves in this world with an intoxicant [alcohol] will die thirsty, will be resurrected thirsty and will enter the Hellfire thirsty.’[Thawab al-A`amal, p. 290, no. 5]

Enjoinment of Abandoning Alcohol even if it be for Other Than Allah

11– The Prophet (SAWA) said, ‘Whoever abandons alcohol for other than the sake of Allah, Allah will quench his thirst [in Paradise] with the sealed wine’. Imam Ali (as) exclaimed, ‘For other than Allah?’ The Prophet (SAWA) replied, ‘Yes, by Allah, for his own protection and well-being.’[bihar al-Anwar, v. 79, p. 412, no. 2]

The Prohibition of That Which Produces the Same Effects as Alcohol

12– Imam al-Kazim (as) said, ‘Allah did not prohibit alcohol because of its name, rather He prohibited it due to its effects, so whatever produces the same effects as alcohol is [treated as] alcohol.’[al-Kafi, v. 6, p. 412, no. 2]

Second part of the argument is political to a degree.

“Anyone who wants to impose this in the name of God or his guidance (Al-Qur’an) is overreaching.”

For me if the first part is agreed upon, the second logic follows. For instance if you don’t consider Iran Islamic, fine then you can say they don’t have the right to interpret. But an Islamic state, like the one run by the prophet, and after him Ali, and in the future the Mahdi, did/will have the right to enforce. There are hadeeses about drunks being lashed during Mohammad’s lifetime and how there was innovation in this at the time of Umar.

Finally, the ayats you quote, you are using semantics to interpret. If you want seriously to follow up on what the Shias think of this or how they interpret, write in to the office of one of the marjas. They should reply and clarify. I am not the right person as I lack knowledge here.

I loved your article, Ramin! I started reading it out loud, just to myself, to enjoy it even more intensely.
I’m a Dutchman trying to start an ecological farm in Bolivia. Though I’ve never believed the boogeyman stories about Iran, I never paid much attention to the factual contents of the Iranian Revolution either. So yes, your article was quite a revelation (and celebration!) to me: it almost felt like singing it, instead of reading.
I see Iran with new eyes now. Thank you!

I’m glad I caught up with this article before others arrive in the featured position.

My thoughts:

What a great growth opportunity, especially for Americans, to discover, “I was wrong.” and stop being played like fearful children.

Infowars, for example, would be markedly less infantile if Alex would re-examine his prejudices against Iran and China and “socialism” and stop jerking the fear and ignorance chain too many of his listeners tolerate because they know no better than to remain afraid of the dark, and that which light has never been shone upon for their eyes to see.

Russia does have a lot of admirers among the Deplorables and anti-globalists. Iran deserves a long and fearless look, as well.

This is just a tremendous piece of great value, what a great glimpse into life in Iran. To the Saker or whomever is monitoring this, any way ? at all we could print this off ? I have had no luck when trying to print from here, for my own use; this piece I would like to share with a neighbor or two. I have pasted it here and there.
I, for one, would be willing to pay an extra fee, like over at CounterPunch to get into their magazine articles, or whatever they call it, …$$ A Subscription fee for the privilege of being able to print ? Just an Idea. $$

Well, very well, please then make better articles on Venezuela as the ones published in the prestigious outlet (the one I can live not without her) sounds so mainstream as if they were for a paid opposition journal at best. I always complain there. Can we call a spade a spade and an economic war an economic war or maybe no info to assess it is available to PTV? TKY

The west has not suppressed moslem brotherhood or moslems!! It has always and to this day fervently used/funded them as opposition to govts which would like to get out of global manipulation schemes.
Iranian “revolution” was no such thing. It was an intelligence operation planned by British/CIA/Mossad. The shah would never have been ousted had he not been leading a powerful self determining strategy not just for Iran but was empowering other nations to get out from under globalist powers.
read “secret affairs” by Mark Curtis… and many similar books
You must wake up

A lot of ideas here are not at all exclusive to ‘leftist socialism’ as if these are some exclusively modern things that today’s socialist ideologues claim to have a monopoly on. Many of these have been done well, even better under Monarchies, which includes cultures all over the world. The Catholic Popes have taught much on this promoting like wise such systems where there is central planning but under subsidiarity and warning against socialism’s moral errors such as coercion and theft of another’s just labor. Rather charity should be emphasied voluntarily, aided strongly by obligation of the religious component.

Also I’ll add that antagonism between the west and islam goes back to Mohammad’s conquests, rapes and enslavement, pushed back finally by the Popes and Catholic monarchs thanks to those great and noble men of the Holy Crusades. So that long history is still with us. Not that it is any excuse today for what the liberal post Christian West does, aided by Prostestant insanity and erroneous support for secular Israel, nor should current day Iran be blamed for Islamic atrocities of the past.

“Christians cannot accept that Islam promotes the most recent prophet of the monotheism which they both share.” – pls dont blame christians. Thsi if false catholicism which is really ZIONISM. TONS of ppl who call themselves christian are acutally ZIONISTS that serve israel.
“membership in the WTO is against Iran’s principles.. – there is nothing about the WTO in the Koran.” – this is why israel/zionism is staging all these fake terrori attacks to blame on “islam/koran/religion of terrorism”, becaseu they are the few nations against the global govevrnment (WTO) and their central banks

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.